Why can't we change?

[dank69]

Because people do not even possess a basic fundamental understanding of our politcal system. We do not have a two party system. We have a one party system.

Because we cannot comprehend that basic fact, we cannot even have a rational discussion about any of the things inside both circles. That is what our bastardized two party system is designed to do. If you want to remove an issue from public discourse, just place it inside the two circles.

Let's try to curb the exaggeration. One party is actively trying to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. One party is fighting for marriage discrimination and the other is actively fighting against it. One party is taking a hands-off approach to weed legalization and the other has people speaking out against it. One party is trying to negotiate with Iran while the other just wants to bomb them. One party wants to maintain/increase funding for public schools while the other actively cuts funding.

 

[Moonbeam]

Let's try to curb the exaggeration. One party is actively trying to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. One party is fighting for marriage discrimination and the other is actively fighting against it. One party is taking a hands-off approach to weed legalization and the other has people speaking out against it. One party is trying to negotiate with Iran while the other just wants to bomb them. One party wants to maintain/increase funding for public schools while the other actively cuts funding.

It seems to me that the equivalency delusion has risen out of the collapse of faith former and libertarian leaning conservatives have had in the Republican party. They discovered they believed in shit and now want to wipe that dirty feeling of everybody.

The similarities between democrats to republicans and how much they have been corrupted by money is far greater than I find comfortable, but the notion they are the same party, is imbecilic in my opinion. The difference between conservatives and liberals goes down to differences in the brain that can be tested by machines. Two completely different approaches to reasoning and the lack of it are revealed. These are facts that have been peer reviewed and can't be swept away by frustrated opinions.

 

[dank69]

It seems to me that the equivalency delusion has risen out of the collapse of faith former and libertarian leaning conservatives have had in the Republican party. They discovered they believed in shit and now want to wipe that dirty feeling of everybody.

...

This is clear to anyone looking in from the outside. They realize that everything the GOP had been promising them was bullshit but refuse to consider that everything the GOP has been saying about Democrats is also bullshit.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Because to get an amendment you would need a politician to lead the charge. Such a thing would take a number of years to accomplish simply because you would have to deal with a lot of people across the entire nation. What would most likely happen is that every other politician would simply drag the process out as long as possible. During that time the politician leading the charge would earn the earn the enmity of nearly every other politician in both parties, guaranteeing that they lose their next election, since they will not be nominated by their party to run again, and no big money backers are going to help them pay for a solo campaign. With them gone the now leaderless movement gets disorganized and dies.

 

[Moonbeam]

Because to get an amendment you would need a politician to lead the charge. Such a thing would take a number of years to accomplish simply because you would have to deal with a lot of people across the entire nation. What would most likely happen is that every other politician would simply drag the process out as long as possible. During that time the politician leading the charge would earn the earn the enmity of nearly every other politician in both parties, guaranteeing that they lose their next election, since they will not be nominated by their party to run again, and no big money backers are going to help them pay for a solo campaign. With them gone the now leaderless movement gets disorganized and dies.

As I said, Hillary has announced this will be one of four tasks she has set for her goals as President if she is elected. It has to be right up there as the most important problems facing the nation. Every American awake and informed knows this. If she fails or backs away from this we will probably have to wait for the US to disintegrate into revolution or die on the vine.

 

[dank69]

As I said, Hillary has announced this will be one of four tasks she has set for her goals as President if she is elected. It has to be right up there as the most important problems facing the nation. Every American awake and informed knows this. If she fails or backs away from this we will probably have to wait for the US to disintegrate into revolution or die on the vine.

And Fox News will begin ramping up the rhetoric that it is class warfare and an assault on free "speech." By 2016 every drooling GOP clown will be convinced that money in politics is a good thing.

 

[SMOGZINN]

As I said, Hillary has announced this will be one of four tasks she has set for her goals as President if she is elected. It has to be right up there as the most important problems facing the nation. Every American awake and informed knows this. If she fails or backs away from this we will probably have to wait for the US to disintegrate into revolution or die on the vine.

Everyone knows this is an empty promise. This is like when politicians say 'No New Taxes', or 'Most Transparent Administration'. No one expects them to keep those promises. Those are just empty feel good words that come out of politician's mouths like the rest of us say good morning.

 

[Moonbeam]

Everyone knows this is an empty promise. This is like when politicians say 'No New Taxes', or 'Most Transparent Administration'. No one expects them to keep those promises. Those are just empty feel good words that come out of politician's mouths like the rest of us say good morning.

I never like it when people say everyone knows. I don't know anything. Trust me. As I said, if this issue isn't addressed, our democracy is finished. We will rot or we will revolt.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I never like it when people say everyone knows. I don't know anything. Trust me. As I said, if this issue isn't addressed, our democracy is finished. We will rot or we will revolt.

You know something, you just wrote an entire post.

 

[Moonbeam]

You know something, you just wrote an entire post.

I did? I have no idea what that means, though.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Money is not free speech.
Corporations are not people.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Don't see an amendment having the 2/3rd majority in both house to pass or support by 3/4th of the states required to enact one. Yet another campaign promise that will never happen.

 

[PokerGuy]

When 25% of the US population doesn't know that the Earth revolves around the sun, 30% can't name the vice president, and 50% can't solve basic elementary logic problems, the notion that 80% of the population has any clue what Citizens United is, and what the implications are (or are not) is absolutely delusional. The vast majority of the population has no clue what the ruling was or what it was about.

Further, the notion that by limiting contributions you "get money out of politics" is also completely delusional. Money has always been -- and will always be -- able to get disproportionate influence on decision making. A lot of left wing idiots complain about money in politics, but fail to realize that the the money is drawn to politics because the government continues to grow and gain more power / influence. As that trend continues, it's obvious you're going to see more money flowing towards gaining influence over legislators and bureaucrats.

Deciding for people how and where they can spend their money is an abridgement of their freedom.

 

[dank69]

When 25% of the US population doesn't know that the Earth revolves around the sun, 30% can't name the vice president, and 50% can't solve basic elementary logic problems, the notion that 80% of the population has any clue what Citizens United is, and what the implications are (or are not) is absolutely delusional. The vast majority of the population has no clue what the ruling was or what it was about.

Further, the notion that by limiting contributions you "get money out of politics" is also completely delusional. Money has always been -- and will always be -- able to get disproportionate influence on decision making. A lot of left wing idiots complain about money in politics, but fail to realize that the the money is drawn to politics because the government continues to grow and gain more power / influence. As that trend continues, it's obvious you're going to see more money flowing towards gaining influence over legislators and bureaucrats.

Deciding for people how and where they can spend their money is an abridgement of their freedom.

CU and rulings like it make it legal to donate money anonymously. Saying that since you can't ever get all money out of politics we might as well make it legal is like saying since we can't eliminate all murder we might as well make murder legal.

 

[boomerang]

By 2016 every drooling GOP clown will be convinced that money in politics is a good thing.

Hillary is not calling for a change now and she certainly could. She's already convinced that money in politics is a good thing and a very good one at that. Somebody has to take the first step. I'd like to hear more than empty rhetoric out of her. Let's see her lead by example.

I've said this countless times before. We'd be smart to emulate the system in place in Canada to the greatest degree possible. Especially as it pertains to campaign length. Eighteen months or more is ridiculous and unnecessary in 2015. A two month long primary and the general election 30 days after would work just fine. If we can't get the money out, we can shorten the time they have to spend it.

Of course all this is just a pipe dream. Politician's have no desire at all to change a system they've mastered over these many years. The status quo is very comfortable to them.

Oh and everyone that pays attention to politics fully understands that a reversal of CU would be all that's required by the left. A restoration of the system to one prior to CU would still be as corrupt as the day is long and I'm certain that would be A-OK.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hillary is not calling for a change now and she certainly could. She's already convinced that money in politics is a good thing and a very good one at that. Somebody has to take the first step. I'd like to hear more than empty rhetoric out of her. Let's see her lead by example.

I've said this countless times before. We'd be smart to emulate the system in place in Canada to the greatest degree possible. Especially as it pertains to campaign length. Eighteen months or more is ridiculous and unnecessary in 2015. A two month long primary and the general election 30 days after would work just fine. If we can't get the money out, we can shorten the time they have to spend it.

Of course all this is just a pipe dream. Politician's have no desire at all to change a system they've mastered over these many years. The status quo is very comfortable to them.

Oh and everyone that pays attention to politics fully understands that a reversal of CU would be all that's required by the left. A restoration of the system to one prior to CU would still be as corrupt as the day is long and I'm certain that would be A-OK.

Why can't we change?

boomerang: Blah Blah Blah

M: That's why.

 

[MongGrel]

It's just going to be a long year and a half in general.

Apparently

 

[Blanky]

I heard it's one of Hillary's aims to push for such an amendment.

If she actually gets this done--fat chance that a well funded politician actually really wants to get campaign funding out to the degree necessary to remove the plutocracy they are a part of--and she's capable of it, that alone is reason enough to elect her as president.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Romney and Obama spent nearly $1,000,000,000 each in the last election.

If that doesn't freak you all out a little bit I don't know what will.

They should have a fixed budget, be able to present themselves to each state, have town hall meetings and a national debate. On a limited budget that we the people pay for.

This crap of just flooding us with propaganda and bullshit for 2 years has to go. However make no mistake about it, if you look at where the money came from a vast majority of it DID NOT come from these giant wealthy donors. That's not accurate. I fear it will though.

 

[dank69]

And Fox News will begin ramping up the rhetoric that it is class warfare and an assault on free "speech." By 2016 every drooling GOP clown will be convinced that money in politics is a good thing.

Hillary gon' take away ma free speech

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yes, we all know that the Democrats hate to receive political contributions from unions. And why any proposed changes to the 1st amendment designed to restrict political contributions will be DOA.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304782404577488584031850026

 

[bshole]

Yes, we all know that the Democrats hate to receive political contributions from unions. And why any proposed changes to the 1st amendment designed to restrict political contributions will be DOA.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304782404577488584031850026

Weird that purchasing elections is considered free speech.

 

[Cienja]

I never like it when people say everyone knows. I don't know anything. Trust me. As I said, if this issue isn't addressed, our democracy is finished. We will rot or we will revolt.

Our democracy should have been finished when we learned the NSA is gathering every bit of data from me, you, and most everyone else, and the NSA is keeping that data indefinitely, and can use it against you at any point they wish. That is when we should have revolted. I bet Snowdon is pissed off that he went through all that he has to expose a MAJOR CRIMINAL process at the NSA, stole that info and showed it to all, and no one did anything; unless I've missed something outside of the new Bluffdale, Utah site water cooling system not working, which I think is a pro-privacy group that is keeping it down.

Remember SOPA? It went nowhere as soon as the Facebook crowd heard how SOPA might impact FB, Pinterest, Twitter, etc., that's when SOPA disappeared. It wasn't people standing in the streets, instead it was people calling and emailing their Congressional representatives and Senators bitching about SOPA.

The people that play the role of Congressperson or Senator get paid, just like you and me - it's their job. They have bills, college tuition, and so forth, just like me and some of you. What would you do to hold on to your job? I'd do anything as long as I can keep a roof, food, clothing, gas in a car, and of course Internet. The people on the Hill are no different. They don't want to lose their job; they quit their former job to take the job on the Hill. They don't want to look for another job, and yes some of them will be able to survive on $4k/plate speaking engagements, but not all of them. They do whatever they can to keep the job. It's good paying, obviously really good benefits, notoriety, and so forth. The rules are different for them, super-PAC's, lobbying, which they do very effectively. And they know who their biggest supporters are and so do those supporters and they EXPECT something in return. Do you ever give money away with no expectation of something in return? No. Unless you're a damn nice person and have the extra cash, but you get my point.

/rant (sorry, I didn't mean to rant that long.)

 

[Cienja]

And the answer to the question "why can't we change?" from the OP, we are in constant change. The only thing that is constant in this life is change.

 

[sm625]

Let's try to curb the exaggeration. One party is actively trying to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. One party is fighting for marriage discrimination and the other is actively fighting against it. One party is taking a hands-off approach to weed legalization and the other has people speaking out against it. One party is trying to negotiate with Iran while the other just wants to bomb them. One party wants to maintain/increase funding for public schools while the other actively cuts funding.

The problem is that none of that is true. What you describe is simply a narrative presented to you. The FACTS are that both parties, in their ACTIONS, have expanded Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Both parties are explicitly federalist in their ACTIONS on marriage discrimination. Both parties are staunchly opposed to weed legalization. Both parties increase federal education spending. The Iran thing is more complicated since the executive holds most of the cards, but really nothing has changed in the past two administration wrt Iran. Not yet anyway.